500 words a day on whatever I want

The tone argument

The tone argument is where you object to someone else’s argument based on its tone: it is too angry, too hateful, not calm enough, not nice enough, etc. It is a logical fallacy because none of those things has anything to do with whether the truth was spoken. It is used to derail and silence.

The privileged use it against the marginalized. This post looks at one case of that: white racists in America using it against blacks when talking about racism.

Examples:

“I am offended.”

“We would listen to you if you said it more nicely.”

“You are so full of hate.”

Blacks are angry, uppity, whining, etc.

Some things to keep in mind if they use it on you:

The whites who use it have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say – no matter what your tone. The tone thing is just to shut you up and dismiss you as an unreasonable person. What you said made them feel uncomfortable and tone is an excuse not to deal with it seriously.

No matter how nicely and calmly and reasonably you make your points some will still say you are whining or angry or full of hate. In their heads whites are so wonderful that to say anything bad about them can only come from hatred – no matter how many facts back you up. So a bad tone can get read into your words whether it is there or not.

If it were as simple as having the right tone then racism would have died out ages ago.

So screw tone. No reasonable person is going to fault you for being angry about racism. Those who do, those who expect you to be not only sweet and calm but to value their feelings over your own are closed-minded jerks. You might want to give them a piece of your mind, but do not fool yourself into thinking you can reason with them: they have already placed themselves beyond reason.

I used to think that whites were brainwashed and just did not know any better. They certainly act as if they are clueless innocents, most of them. But the tone argument shows that many are not.

When a clueless innocent hurts you and you tell him, he wants to know what went wrong so he can stop it and make it right. He apologizes and means it. Because he never meant to hurt you in the first place.

But a person who uses the tone argument does the opposite: he refuses to face up to the wrong he has done or do anything about it, much less apologize. Instead he turns it on you, making it not about what you said but how you said it.

Those are the actions of someone who knows he did wrong – or does not care whether he did wrong – and refuses to do anything about it. Those are the actions of a cold-hearted bastard, not a clueless innocent.

95 Responses

Notice how one commentator in particular states the uploader has a chip on her wrt white people. Clearly any pointing out of white privilege is dismissed as being angry and bitter towards every white person.

Good blog entry, the tone argument has been done to death. Personally I believe it stems from a “who the hell are you to actually express frustration and anger towards me” mentality. An ugly way of thinking to which most people would never admit. Its fine to be racist just not called a racist.

@ Y

Youtube comments on such issues are often depressing, any ignorant, hateful jackass with an eye and a functional digit can post. I agree with a lot of the points the woman in the vid made, I don’t believe “all that’s old (and white) is gold”. Too often these “intellectual” discussions just turn into battles of the fatheads.

As Abagond says – it’s a fallacy. It’s actually a convenient and effortless way to dismiss a valid point without any further reflection. It’s form over substance.

The phenomenon becomes most obvious when (mostly) white Americans hit continental Europe. Most white Anglo-Americans – and even many British – can’t handle open verbal confrontation, the least the Latin mediterranean style. Although the potentially explosive mentality of Southern Europeans and also quite a few Africans gets more and more diluted through the strong influence from globalisation from across the pond, it’s still there. The French are arguably the least likely to hold back on that end, hence the tedious tensions with Anglos. What many white Anglos can’t get their heads around is that assertiveness is not necessarily a personal attack, but most of the time based on a systematic or political idea(l).

There is a lingering stereotype (here we go again…) in Europe that you better not raise your voice against Americans when you’re in the US as you might either get sued or shot. Or otherwise backstabbed in some other sneaky way – which I have experienced when I worked over there for a few years. What shocked me most is when I was told to better hold back some of my opinions even if they are presented in a calm and pragmatic manner. Democracy?…

The idea of being “polite” and “not offending anybody” seems to be very important for whites (white anglos at least).

So when somebody raises their voice and decide not to be polite they panic- literally, as if this person did something outrageous or unfair.

Not being polite completely messes up with everything they know about what communication between people should look like, and they see it as an open treat.

When it comes to arguing about race, they take it to another level because many of them don’t see blacks as equal participants in a conversation- so their “not being polite” for whites mean they are forgetting about “civilized” talk and are back to “animalistic” behavior.

No kidding. This is an explanation I got once when I asked a white person why he failed to listen what a black man had to say in a forum discussion.

@Femi

The phenomenon becomes most obvious when (mostly) white Americans hit continental Europe. Most white Anglo-Americans – and even many British – can’t handle open verbal confrontation, the least the Latin mediterranean style.

…

There is a lingering stereotype (here we go again…) in Europe that you better not raise your voice against Americans when you’re in the US as you might either get sued or shot.

Concept explored by Adorno, and supposed to characterize the adherents of fascism. The authoritarian personality is intolerant, bigoted, dominating, attracted to regimes of command and submission, and impatient of subtlety of any kind.

Title of 1940s study by Berkeley researchers into the psychological origins of anti-Semitism. The term was used to refer to an ‘ethnocentric’ personality pattern characterized by traits such as obedience, dogmatism, prejudice, contempt for weakness, low tolerance for ambiguity, hostility to members of ‘outgroups’, and superstition.

Mira, I agree with your comment. The “politeness” standard does seems to be part of it. I also think that this is also part of the reason why:

“In their heads whites are so wonderful that to say anything bad about them can only come from hatred – no matter how many facts back you up. So a bad tone can get read into your words whether it is there or not.”

I too have been annoyed with the “Tone” argument, but i have found ways around it. when someone tells me they would listen if i would just be more polite, i ask them would they expect me to be polite if i was being stabbed, raped, robbed? Would the rapist, murder, robber stop doing harm to me if i just asked them nicely to stop please. Then i ask, why should a racist be allowed to harm me, and then still expect me to be polite, would they suddenly stop being racist? It gives them something to think about

I agree with other commenters that to white many people speaking passionately is seen as an attack. I think a lot of white folks have bought into it once they became “Americanized”, but I believe from my own personal experience (coming from an Italian family) that it is more predominant in “WASPs”. All I can say is “Get over yourself!”

Mira- yes it is derailment. Plus to a lot of white folks, if you disagree with them, no matter HOW you state your argument, you are being “rude” or “combative” just for pointing out the fallacies of their statements.

Those are the actions of someone who knows he did wrong – or does not care whether he did wrong – and refuses to do anything about it. Those are the actions of a cold-hearted bastard, not a clueless innocent.

Exactly. So that makes a double disrespect for a black (POC) person, because he or she is not just hurt bu racism but also forced to speak polite (which is humiliating) and still, those people fail to listen.

The tone argument is listed in the derailment for dummies. I hate it, you are talking passionately about something that effects your daily life but you are told to calm down or they won’t listen as if you are a child throwing a temper tantrum

Oh wow I was just about to comment about how much I relate to this post when I saw Y post my youtube video. Thanks@ Y.
The fact of the matter is most white people do these things because they don’t have to care about racism-it does not affect them, and hearing about it is a pain in the ass. I used to care about being PC and using a pleasant tone, but racism burns me up on the inside-there is no reason why I should hide my feelings. As long as the author/speaker is stating their point in a direct, truthful manner, tone should be irrelevant.
Anger is always justified when it comes from an oppressed white group like the LGBT community (who mostly consist of whites) or feminists. It is never justified coming from a person of color because we have long since been written off as overly emotional, illogical, miseducated, and lazy.

If your arrogant tone counted as an ad hominem then way more of your comments would be deleted. No, your ad hominems come from your very words, like calling someone “dumb as a box of rocks” or calling someone’s comments “the disconnected ramblings of some mother’s son in a basement”.

However if someone dismisses what you say BECAUSE you sound arrogant, that would be a tone argument and that is a logical fallacy: even those who sound arrogant are right some of the time.

given that it was me who described you in such a way, understand that I said you come across that way when you argue with people on here. What you are like in the world outside the Abagond blog, I have no idea!

Still, I think your case illustrates that tone IS still important, and not just for white people; I think it has a lot to do with why some people here get pissed at you from time to time.

Hey Gata! Love your channel! Do you remember that AidanNagolxxx character? He should be the poster child for this post. For those of you how dont know he was a white racist that used to stalk black women on youtube, moan about “reverse-racism” and accuse blacks of being “racist” for calling out white privileged/guilt.

OK, I have a (perhaps stupid) question. Now, I hear “white guilt” referred to as a bad thing. Please help me understand… can’t feeling “guilty” over things that white people do to POC be productive? I mean, can’t it lead to a white person realizing they need to make a positive change in their life, and in society as a whole??

I was reading a Jezebel thread where a black woman said that deciding she couldn’t read Essence anymore was like losing a girlfriend. Certainly reasonable for a magazine that is decades old and many of us grew up with it. But white people were calling this out as “too angry” and saying it made people not want to listen to what she was saying.

My problem with White Guilt is evident in movies like Avatar or Dangerous Minds. It makes people think they can repudiate their whiteness without having to really acknowledge that people of color are fully human. White Guilt may lead white people to have more empathy, but usually it just makes white liberals want to “there there” people of color, feel bad for us, and try to rescue us. I really hate the condescension and I still feel like it privileges white people because they get to be the good guys and the bad guys, the only fully human ones.

White guilt can be a good thing but 99 times out of 100 it does not turn out that way. In most cases guilt leads to shifting blame onto blacks and avoiding the issue to avoid the feeling of guilt. It leads to defensiveness and a sense of helplessness. It is something white people have to OVERCOME to be truly anti-racist.

The healthy feeling to have in regard to racism in American society is not guilt or pity or concern but anger – which the tone argument rules as being out of bounds.

Here is my take on white guilt… In the people who do actually feel it, it might be a good thing, but i think it is rarer in actuality than our familiarity of the term would actually suggest. Do I feel guilty about racism? No because what I feel is anger at the injustice of racism. And a desire to try and make things right. And thats what I try and tell people.

Frankly i have never once heard of ‘white guilt’ being spoken of within the white community as a positive catalyst for getting something done. I would like it if I had… but I have not. ‘White guilt’ is a term thown at me when i point out racist behavior, and the perpetrators are of the midset to deny it is racist. Or it is a weapon in the arsenal used exlusively to deny racism’s existence. example ‘oh look at the wee liberal lady with your white guilt.. you did not actually own slaves did you?’ Well obviously i did not, and i am not personally responsible for slavery. so it becomes a tool to demean whatever i say. White guilt is in a sense purposely contrived and mocked by consciously racist influences like fox news or conservative media. And even that elusive creature… the ‘liberal’ media. That way, when facts get pointed out in regards to poverty and health care… They can be dismissed much more easily. because they have created this other thing.. white guilt, which apparently motivates anti racists to want to ‘coddle ‘black people or something, so therefore all that crazy fact based stuff they point out can be denied, because it is really not fact at all but white guilt talking. The “white guilt’ bogey man is just one of many things contrived adn built upon to allow racists to NOT feel guilty. At some point in our history, perhaps there was legitimately something like white guilt, but today the concept is almost exlusively a tool of the angry white man movement, Maybe on some level, the people who push this concept the most (the ACTUAL outwardly racist like rush limbaugh) understand the concept in a non cynical manner but they are quite adept at shutting down all concept of it in others. Discussing white guilt as a perjorative seems to vaccinate WP from the painful truth of looking at racism genuinely.

The only exception to that are white women in college. they seem to feel white guilt acutely for a while, and thats a good thing, but they usually end up in an all white suburb within ten years.

No, there isn’t. That’s the point. I stepped outta whatever THAT was ages ago, but I guess I’m just too difficult to get over.

Believe me, I’d much rather peeps focus on the topic. Abagond writes brilliantly, and I think some of the commenters are simply derailing potentially productive and educational conversations by focusing on one another.

Do I feel guilty about racism?? Well, is “guilt” synonymous with “shame”??? I feel ASHAMED of white people for the violence and oppression we have perpetrated on the world. And that to me transforms into anger, which provides and impetus to do better and change the entire system. Right now though, I am struggling with how exactly to go about causing the change I want to see. Yes, I write about racism. Yes, I talk about racism. Yes, I call out racism when I see it. But to me, that is not enough. I am struggling with figuring out what the next step is. It is all good to do those things, but those operate on a micro level, and what is really needed is monumental change on a societal level. I am struggling with figuring out how to be an agent for that societal overhaul.

The way I see white guilt, it’s not really a conscious feeling of honest guilt or shame. Some people might have it, of course, but what is generally considered “a white guilt” (correct me if I’m wrong) is a counter-productive and a racist way of dealing with injustice that happened (and still happens) to non-whites. A white person knows, deep down, how whites got what they have (and it’s not about hard work!), but instead really doing something about it, they make it about “some other whites” and/or romanticize the pain and suffering of those affected by racism. White liberals often do it, and since we all know Hollywood is full of them, you get their view of the world in form of white guilt movies, such as “Avatar” and other “mighty w.” films.

@Juju I feel ASHAMED of white people for the violence and oppression we have perpetrated on the world.

So what violence and oppression have you, personally, inflicted on the world, JuJu, you evil woman you?

I think personal guilt for the actions of a collectivity is pretty silly, myself. First of all, it psychologizes the social, which is kinda nuts. Secondly, it presumes that everyone who is “white” is equally guilty in dishing out what has happened.

Let’s think about that for a bit. This means that Mira, a white slav from an ethnic group whose very name gave us “slave” in English (because they were one of Europe’s main enslaved groups for hundreds of years), a citizen of a country which has been bombed to hell and back in the past few decades by the U.S. and NATO, is as “responsible” for racism as any old Republican pundit on Fox and is as responsible for slavery as any 19th century slave trader.

That’s just nuts, I’m sorry.

The “white guilt” premise presumes that anyone classified as “white” (and this itself is a slippery concept) needs must feel bad about crap that happened hundreds of years before they were born.

Why is this a bad idea?

Because it distracts your attention from dealing with the racism, violence and evil that you DO play a part in.

Newsflash to everyone here that`s a citizen of Britain or the U.S.? You`re countries are involved in illegal wars that are killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people and which have a very clear-cut racist component. The people who are doing this IN YOUR NAME are your elected officials. Don`t you think you should feel bad about THAT, seeing as how we`re being all so sensitive about collective guilt here?

Naw…..

It`s much more convenient to feel guilty about stuff that occurred hundreds of years ago over which we have and had no control. Why worry about the evil we do in the here and now when we can agonize over the past?

Now let me make one thing PERFECTLY clear: I am not avocating that people ignore history and pretend that eviol stuff didn’t happen. What I am saying is that you feel guilty or “personally responsible” for stuff which happened centuries before you were born, more often than not, is a convenient way of ignoring the stuff you REALLY ARE responsible for in the here and now.

“But I also think they expect a certain degree of deference from blacks and when they do not receive it that too can lead to the tone argument.”

I think it also has to do with the infantilization of Black people by whites. We tell CHILDREN not to speak to us in a certain tone of voice, yet white people expect ADULTS to “obey” them as well. But, passion is OK when it is a white person expressing it! (For example the Tea Partiers)

@ Abagond:“I agree that white Anglo-Americans become uncomfortable if you show strong emotion and that can lead them to make a tone argument. “

I think it’s also important to make the distinction between “strong emotion” and abusive/aggressive language. Name calling doesn’t help at all and simply devolves an argument into tone accusations and mindless tit-for-tat, as we see all the time on this site. Likewise for overly assuming things about a participant’s background or intentions.

I have observed commenters on blogs making really nasty uncalled-for remarks and accusations about another. Then when that person tries to protest and stick up for him/herself (as is natural in the face of such an attack), that person is accused of derailing and using a tone argument.

I’m a believer that someone can express their strong emotion without being abusive to the other person. However, sadly it seems the majority of people struggle to do this.

This happens alot when you critique feminism in a discussion/debate with feminists, as well. Many of them seem to believe in the moral superiority of that philosophy, which leads to behavior nearly identical to what;’s described in this artcile from them.

I think it also has to do with the infantilization of Black people by whites. We tell CHILDREN not to speak to us in a certain tone of voice, yet white people expect ADULTS to “obey” them as well. But, passion is OK when it is a white person expressing it! (For example the Tea Partiers)

Agree with Scipio, the tone argument is a serious problem when trying to have discussions with white feminists.

I think the tone argument can stem from discomfort over being exposed to a completely different perspective. White perspectives are universally privileged in the US. If you dare to talk about something from your point of view without apology, even just matter or factly without anger, they will perceive you as being aggressive.

The main problem with (female white) feminists is the fact they see themselves as an oppressed group and therefore are completely unable to see they might be oppressors (due to their white privilege). Also, some of them are huge fans of the Opression Olympics, and feel that any talk about racism prevents people from thinking about their problems (sexism).

They say they are all pro-women, but are often unable to see non-white women as “one of their own”.

Same, its amazing to me how he managed to prefer blacks sexually but basically think us inferior in every regard. I actually remember calling him out on a crazy comment he left on one woman’s channel. Basically said that “96% of all black men are rapists”

Every single white perspective? Including, say, the white class-based perspective?

Because I may be wrong here, but I don`t see that coming up much anywhere.

In fact, I`d bet that most people posting here think that “class” either means some sort of lifestyle choice or has to do with how much money you make. Americans are SERIOUSLY uninformed when it comes to class.

I bet I can find far many more white people who’ve read – say – The Autobiography of Malcolm X than have read The Communist Manifesto.

Abagond said:“I agree that white Anglo-Americans become uncomfortable if you show strong emotion and that can lead them to make a tone argument.

But I also think they expect a certain degree of deference from blacks and when they do not receive it that too can lead to the tone argument.”

Very, very true. This shite is happening to me at work and I’m at a loss as to what to do about it. I’m forced to walk on eggshells so I don’t offend the ‘delicate sensibilities’ of my white, female co-workers! Apparently, even my emails are scrutinized to make sure that they’re not ‘snarky’ or ‘hostile’ in TONE! 😡

My computer crashed the other day as well, just when I was getting ready to print out the documentation I’d been saving to prove this – I was going to talk with an attorney on Friday, and now I have no physical proof of my hostile work environment. It’s only become hostile in the past 6 months, when a new supervisor for my department was hired on – suddenly, everything I say or do is under a microscope! P!$$es me off IMMENSELY.

[…] or awkward run-ins at the mall. When I tried to speak about Islamophobia, I was given a defensive “I’m-offended-that-you’re-offended” attitude. “Proof” was demanded about hate crimes committed against Muslims (because if the news […]

I whole heatedly agree that the tone argument is a logical fallacy, specifically non sequitor. However, I will leave a discussion regardless of the logic if I am accosted with a sufficiently disrespectful tone, and so should you. This is not an objection to someone else’s argument. It’s not an argument at all. It is a demand of civility, and an acknowledgement that all social interactions are voluntary. Discovering the truth of a disagreement is not more important to me than that I be treated with civility, because that is what I offer and I think reciprocity is a reasonable expectation. I have a high tolerance for flared tempers, and I will always attempt to push through them to return to reason, but if reason is lost I respect myself too greatly to be subjected to verbal abuse in the pursuit of truth, and so should you.

You are correct, that the tone argument is used to misdirect. In many cases this is a sign that reason is already lost. In this case intensifying the tone cannot return the argument to reason anyway. But also it is reasonable thing for a person to request that an argument be returned to civil tones, and if their aim is to better listen, and to be better heard, as it often is in my experience, than reason is not lost. I think it is a harmful thing to presume that any comment on tone automatically means your opponent has no interest in what you have to say.

But once it is clear beyond doubt that they don’t I think it important to visit upon them the full power of your moral condemnation and to leave the discussion.

[…] target of the bigotry is chastised for not responding to their oppression 'politely.' That's why the tone argument is considered a derailing tactic. Fi is in some senses very uncompromising so I do find the second […]

[…] platitudes. I and other women (especially rape survivors) shouldn’t be required to consider the delicate feelings of men when confronted with their demonstrations of misogyny. And by objecting, by demanding special […]

[…] It’s the perfect trap. A woman is asking you to recognize how you are contributing outright to her oppression, she is asking you to acknowledge how you are demonstrating disrespect, derision, and maybe outright hatred of women. The best possible response? To plug your ears and shout about how you don’t have to listen to the big meanie-head woman with her big meanie-head objections, because you’ve made a judgment call about her that doesn’t actually influence anything, except your self-righteousness as you declare yourself above the conversation at hand. This is usually best handled with a good dose of the tone argument. […]

Classic (and the most sinister, passive-aggressive) type of gas-lighting by White people, when debating controversial issues like race and politics.

I’ve definitely been a victim of the Tone Argument; especially when I worked at a predominantly White staffed– (I was one of two Black employees and one Latina who worked there)– environment at a historical society.

The adagio dance always went as follows: co-worker (usually another woman… White) would aggressively (in both body language and tone) approach me about something work-related or engage me in conversation about some cultural issue in the news during lunch hour. If I didn’t respond accordingly, s/he’d raise her voice, and I’d mentally count to ten before calmly disengaging.

However, unbeknownst to me, a petty, verbal grievance of some sort would be lodged against me, and I’d be scolded for being by a supervisor/The Director for being… and I quote… “ofttimes aloof” and “abrasive” in my tone. And how *insert person* was extremely sensitive about said issue(s) and that I should try to use a “gentler tone” to placate that person’s ego.

[…] here is what people who get hit with the Tone Argument all the time are telling each other about it. No matter how nicely and calmly and reasonably you make your points some will still say you are […]

[…] me to stop saying it. It’s a common word, everyone says it.” Ah, how I love me some tone argument in the morning. Us crips are just always rolling all over the rights of the able-bodied, doncha […]

[…] The Tone Argument by abagond does a good job pointing out that the Tone Argument is generally used as a way for people who don’t want to listen to blame anything but their own apathy. It’s a way of saying, “It is your fault that more people don’t care, that I don’t care.” It’s a tactic of people who do not want to take responsibility for their own priorities, and would be BS for that reason alone even if it weren’t such a gross silencing tactic. […]

Hmmm… (Proposition A and proposition A even louder and proposition A loudly with an expression of anger that carries an implied threat of violence and (proposition A or else)) implies Proposition A, and no further conclusions?

The point is that the “tone” implicitly carries information of it’s own, and that information must be considered as an unspoken “proposition B” in the above logic. Whether or not it creates a logical fallacy or not depends upon what “proposition B” amounts to in the context of the debate or dialectic.

Is the anger due to belacosity? (e.g. an alcoholic confronted with his drinking problem who is in denial of the negative effects it has on his life is angry for a different reason than a white Wisconsinite who is offended by Geicko’s depiction of cave men as being white.)

So, all you smurfing melon farmers need to listen up and smurf. Yeah. Don’t forget that there are still a few good men out there; Would it be a shame if their voices are not loud enough?

Anger carries an implied threat of violence. That creates a threat, which puts people into the “fight or flight” mode. Certainly it is ironic to use an angry tone when complaining about violence and discrimination… See what I’m saying?

The entirety of what somebody is “saying” is conveyed not only by the literal meaning, in terms of the denotational definition of the words they choose, and the direct meaning — assuming non-ambiguous syntactical construction… But also upon the connotational definitions, within the complex pragmatical context of the minds of both the speaker and the listener… (Did you “get” what I think I “said”? Each of our minds has a different set of knowledge; Is the common subset sufficient? Does my formulation allude to the “same thing” within your consciousness as it does within mine?)

Certainly the totality of the attempted communication depends also upon the non-verbal cues involved in the interlocution. What it all comes down to is seriously affected by each and every element of that attempted communication, including not only what I think I said, and what you think I said, but by how I said it and upon how you reacted to how I said it.

Are you expressing anger as a means of expounding upon the behavior syndrome displayed by the __________ you are complaining about? Can you instead talk *about* that anger, vs communicating about it by demonstrating it? Because when you demonstrate the same form of communication you are complaining about — communication that carries an explicit or implicit threat of violence, subjugation, or whatever it may be… many listeners will not catch the vocal-intonational-clue, tonal subtlety, or tropism meant to convey *that* information; they will, by Occam’s Razor, assume that you are ANGRY yourself!

Yes, I understand what you’re saying… but apprehension of the subliminal emotive discourse does not effect one’s ability to distinguish the corporeal substructure of any given argument, devoid of it’s non emotive content.?

1. Anger at injustice is not the same thing as injustice. Anyone with a functioning heart and brain is going to be angry – unless they are brainwashed, do not care or benefit in some way from the injustice. The tone argument is used to silence that anger. How can that be right?

2. No matter how calmly and how reasonably you express yourself in talking about injustice, some of those who benefit from it will still read anger and hatred into your words. It is their way dismissing what you have to say.

Though the concept of “you sound angry so you’re wrong” is incorrect and it is wrong to dismiss someone’s arguments simply for their tone.

Though (depending on what you’re reacting too) reacting angrily may not be appropriate. I personally don’t think being a victim is an excuse to adopt a bad tone(all the time)

There is such a thing as overreacting.
If someone has a small misconception (IE you’re white friend gets you fried chicken cause you’re black) it’s best to just say “hey not all blacks like fried chicken”

I got a lot of negative comments, but a few people were calm enough to address my misconception and refer me to things to further expand my knowledge, and I did. I was then able to understand the flaws of my misconception.

When I look back at it now, if it wasn’t for those few people. I probably would’ve been like “whatever fuck you guys” and have remained ignorant. That would’ve been wrong of me, but it does show the important of tone.
This is coming from a gay black guy(2 underprivileged classes made worse by being a male).

I’m not saying that we must be nice in the face of oppressive or harmful misconceptions (IE all blacks are poor and dumb), but small/innocent ones aren’t worth looking like an asshole just because someone had what we all have (misconceptions).

I think you unerestimate people emotional reaction when they feel they are being attacked espedially on an issue which is sensitive , and they are in defencive position.

it is most important in such a situation to be as calm as one possibly can and talk without any apparent emotion , without saying anything which may be interpret that the other is a bad person only the action hurts you a bit.
if its possible the best way is to find a way to make it a joke ,
you might resent it , but this is the best way people can understand things that poeple just dont want to know . this is why comdians tells us the truth other do not.

i admit though that i don’t know the situation since i live in israel and never been in the state .

[…] pained, and sensitive. Not everyone can remain calm and neutral when presented with prejudice, and it’s not their job to be. It’s your job to not be bigoted in the first place. And if you fail at that, you can’t […]

[…] me walking in minefields of racist entitlement and microaggressions, getting washed in WWT and variations thereon when I had the audacity to point out shrapnel wounds?: Yes, my raced identity is valid. […]

This post was brings poster Paige to mind. She needs to reads this. Because it’s got her name written all over it. She got offended because I was offended. Like i stated on a previous post thread. White fragility and Reading While White and the mindset of “whiteness “ are two different things and has nothing to do with her ethnicity. I don’t know why folks like her are long time posters yet they learn nothing.

All facts are irrelevant if you’re an insane bitch. Also, most in-person arguments are not about facts in the first place. Your narcissism does not validly exclude your daily behavior of being a fucking bitch.